EDR Case Law
The following is a list of court cases, U.S. and Canada, related to automotive Event
Data Recorders and is updated as new cases are reported. The
submission of cases for inclusion is appreciated.
Canada
Canada R. v. Daley, 2003 NBQB 20, S/CR/7/02
(2002)
This was a Dangerous Driving Causing Death charge where evidence from the EDR was accepted. The EDR from a 2000 Pontiac Sunfire gave a speed of 124
Km/h in a 60 km/h speed zone. On-scene evidence corroborated the EDR evidence.
The charged party was found guilty. This case was contributed by Evan W. Scott,
Sr/Cst i/c Traffic Services, Rothesay Regional Police Force, New Brunswick, Canada
and with contributions by Dave Little.
Canada R. v. Gauthier, 2003 QCCQ, Case No. 500-01-013375-016 (2003)
An attempt was made by the defense to prevent the introduction of the EDR evidence alleging it violated the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms. This was denied and the defendant was found guilty of Dangerous Driving Causing Death. The EDR in his Pontiac Sunfire indicated a speed
of 131 km/h. Contributed by Dave Little.
Canada R. v. Gratton, 2003 ABQB 728, Case No. 016051344Q
(2003)
This case was a result of a crash involving a 2000 Chevrolet Silverado truck and a
1987 Ford Taurus station wagon. Five occupants of the station wagon were killed. EDR
evidence was not accepted in this case. Contributed by Dave Little.
Canada R. v. Brander, 2003 ABQB 756, Case No. 017156316Q1
(2003)
This case involved an unmarked police car, a Ford Crown Victoria, that crashed into
a Tempo as it turned left across the police car's path. Although EDR evidence was
entered as part of the analysis of the crash, it was disregarded by the court.
Canada R. v. Summers, Ontario Superior Court of Justice (2006)
This was a criminal case where the
defendant was charged with Dangerous Driving resulting in the death of an
Ontario Provincial Police Constable. EDR evidence was admitted and the
defendant was convicted.
United States
Federal
Harris v. General Motors Corp., Electronic Citation: 2000 FED App. 0039P
(6th Cir.), File Name: 00a0039p.06
This case involved the introduction of DERM data and the reported function of the air bag system.
Wright v. CSX Transportation, 5:01-cv-324-4 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 1,
2002)
Defense counsel relied, in part, on data stored by a "black box" that General Motors Inc. began installing in some of its vehicles in 1990. It was the first railroad crossing accident case in the United States to go to trial using GM's black box data as
evidence.
Arizona
Arizona v. O'Brien, Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, Case No.
CR 2003-016197-001 DT (2004)
This was a criminal case where the driver was charged with leaving the scene of a
pedestrian involved accident. EDR evidence was admitted. The defendant was found guilty.
California
California v. Beeler, San Diego Superior Court, Case No. SCD158974
(2002)
The defendant was operating a Ferrari and lost control in a curve, crossing the
center median striking a Saturn and killing the driver. EDR data was admitted. The defendant was convicted.
This case was contributed by
Ed Phillips.
California v. Sanchez, Ventura County, Case No. 2001 9000 34
(2003)
This was a murder case where the vehicle was not the weapon. EDR evidence was
admitted. This case was contributed by
Rusty Haight.
California
v. Garibay, San Diego Superior Court, Case No. DA MAL791 (2006)
The defendant was involved in
a head-on collision a motorcycle where two people on the motorcycle were
killed. The defendant was arrested about 1.5 miles from the scene near her disabled vehicle. At trial, SDM data was admitted without contention. The
defendant was convicted by the jury on two counts of vehicular manslaughter.
This case was contributed by Ed Phillips.
California v. Whelan, San Fernando Superior Court
(2006)
The defendant was convicted
in a jury trial on three
counts of second degree murder and two related counts of driving under the
influence with a BAC of 0.26. The EDR in the defendant's car, a 2003 Chevrolet
Corvette, recorded a speed of 156 miles per hour
at five seconds before impact with a 1988 Honda Accord.
Colorado
Colorado v. Cain, 1st Judicial District Court, Division 3, Jefferson County,
Case No. 01 CR 967 (2002)
This was a Felony Vehicular
Assault case and was the first criminal case where EDR evidence was introduced.
The defendant was acquitted by the jury.
Florida
Florida v. Walker, 20th Judicial Circuit, Lee County, Case No. 00-002866CF RTC
(2003)
This was a criminal case with a two vehicle, head-on collision. The defendant was charged with two counts of Vehicular Homicide. At issue was the defendant's speed and in which lane the collision occurred. The EDR provided evidence the defendant was not speeding at the time of the collision. The jury found the defendant not guilty.
Florida v. Matos, 17th Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Case No. 02015762 CF 10A
(2003)
This was a criminal case with two counts of Vehicular Homicide. EDR evidence
relating to vehicle speed was introduced and the case went to a jury. The defendant was convicted by a jury.
Florida v. Ubals, 17th Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Case No. 01017144 CF 10A
(2003)
This was a criminal case with two counts of DUI Manslaughter and two counts of
Vehicular Homicide. The defendant was found guilty in a jury trial.
Florida v. Derreza, 1st Judicial Circuit, Escambia County, Case No.
2004 CF 003842A (2005)
Florida v. Grayson, 1st Judicial Circuit, Escambia County, Case No.
2004 CF 003842B (2005)
This was a criminal case where the defendants were charged with Negligent
Homicide. The prosecution contended the defendants were racing in a 45 mph
speed zone. EDR evidence from Grayson's vehicle was entered by the prosecution
and indicated a speed of 76 to 80 mph. Defense experts offered speed estimates of 48 to 54 mph. A defense
eyewitness testified the vehicles did not appear to be racing before the
crash. Both defendants were found not guilty by a jury. More
details.
Florida Appellate
Matos v. Florida, Fourth
District Court of Appeals, Case No. 4D03-2043, Opinion Filed
March 30, 2005.
This is the Appeals Court opinion on the admissibility of
EDR evidence. The conviction was upheld and EDR evidence found to be admissible. The
opinion includes an analysis on a Frye issue.
Matos v. Florida, Florida Supreme Court, Case No.
SCO5-887. The court declined to
hear the case on Sep. 12, 2005.
Georgia
Anderson-Barahona v. General Motors Corp., No. 99A19714, GA, Cobb County Cir. Ct., Apr. 7, 2000.
In this case, the plaintiff sought data from GM to help prove a defect caused the car to accelerate suddenly to 90 mph resulting in a crash.
Hawaii
Hawaii
v. Michael Baybado, Case No. 04-1-0456(2), 2nd Cir. Ct., May 23, 2005.
On Oct. 24, 2002, a 2001
Chevrolet S-10 pickup, driven by Baybado, crossed the center line
of a highway in west Maui striking a van approaching from the opposite
direction. One passenger in the van was killed and two other
occupants were injured. Baybado was charged with first degree negligent
homicide. Baybado testified that he had fallen asleep at the wheel while EDR data
indicated a speed of about 45 mph with no braking prior to impact. The
defendant was convicted on
second degree negligent homicide. This case was contributed by James H. Mitchell, Impact Dynamics
Co.,
Hilo,
HI.
Illinois
Illinois v. Carone, Kane County Circuit Court, Case No. 03-CF-515
(2005)
This was a bench trial where EDR evidence was introduced by the prosecution.
The court found the defendant guilty on 10 counts that included reckless homicide, reckless homicide of an unborn child and a traffic violation for causing the crash.
Illinois Appellate
Bachman, et al, v. General Motors Corp., Uftring Chevrolet-Oldsmobile, Delphi Automotive Systems and Delco Electronics
Systems, Illinois App. Ct., 4th Dist., No. 4-01-0237, Appeal from Circuit Court of Woodford County,
Case No. 98L21 (2002)
This is an appellate decision finding SDM data acquisition is not new or novel and meets the Frye standard for admissibility. SDM data was admitted into evidence in the civil trial.
This case was
contributed by Brad Muir.
Illinois v. Barham, Illinois App. Ct, 5th Dist., No. 5-02-0047, Appeal from the Circuit Court of
Johnson County, Case No. 00-CF-90 (2003)
This is an appellate decision in a criminal case where EDR evidence was introduced regarding the vehicle's speed. The conviction was overturned
on grounds not related to the EDR evidence. This case was contributed by William Newman.
Maine
Maine v. Howell, Somerset County
Superior Court, Docket No. CR05427 (2006)
The charge of Manslaughter
was dismissed when the judge determined the state had failed to prove the
charges. EDR evidence was introduced by the prosecution indicating a speed of
62 to 67mph in a 55mph zone.
Massachusetts
Massachusetts v. Zimmerman, Peabody District Court, Case No.
0340-CR-0071 (2005)
This was a criminal case where EDR evidence was entered by the prosecution.
The defendant was found guilty in a jury trial of Misdemeanor Homicide. The
Massachusetts Appeals Court, Case no. 2005-J-0316, denied a defendant's motion
for stay without hearing on July 21, 2005.
Massachusetts v. Wilson, Hampden Superior
Court, Case No. 04-1228 (2005)
This was a criminal case
where the prosecution sought to enter EDR evidence and the defense objected.
The court ruled the EDR evidence was inadmissible. The jury returned a verdict
of not guilty. More details.
Michigan
Michigan v. Wood, Charlotte, Eaton County, Case No. 02 283 FH (2003)
Admission of the EDR data over the objection of the defense where the defendant brought a "Davis-Frye" motion. The evidence was admitted.
This case was contributed by Rusty Haight.
Michigan v. Schubert, 13th Circuit Court, Case No. 04-9625-FH
(2005)
This was a criminal case where EDR evidence was introduced by the
prosecution. A jury found the defendant guilty of negligent homicide.
Nevada
Nevada v. Corcran, 8th District Court,
Case No. 06-C-222574-C (2006)
A
Nevada Highway Patrol trooper pled guilty to five counts of felony reckless
driving in an on-duty crash that killed four people and injured one in
February, 2006. The defendant was driving 113mph in a police cruiser that
crashed into a Cadillac on I-15 south of Las Vegas. The police determined the
emergency lights and siren were not in use, that the defendant was not in
pursuit of another vehicle and was not answering an emergency dispatch at the
time of the crash. Crash data was recovered from the police cruiser, a 2005 Crown Victoria, by Ford Motor Co.
New York
New York v. Christmann, Newark Village Court, Case No. 03110007 (2004)
This was a non-jury criminal trial on a speeding citation. The defendant was found
guilty of speeding, using EDR evidence, when his vehicle struck and killed a pedestrian.
New York v. Hopkins, Monroe County Court, Case No. 2004-0338
(2004)
This was a criminal case where EDR evidence was introduced by the
prosecution. A jury found the defendant guilty of manslaughter.
Ohio
Ohio v. Larry Wilson, Perry County
Common Pleas Court, Case No. 04-CR-0034 (2005)
Ohio v. Jason Barron, Perry County
Common Pleas Court, Case No. 04-CR-0035 (2005)
These criminal cases
were combined at trial and both defendants were charged with Aggravated
Vehicular Homicide. Witnesses reported the defendants were racing before
colliding with a third vehicle at an intersection. EDR evidence was introduced
by the prosecution. The jury returned a guilty verdict. These cases were
contributed by Sgt. Chuck Veppert, Ohio State Highway Patrol.
Ohio Appellate
Ohio v. Larry Wilson, 5th District
Court of Appeals, Case No. 05CA5 (2005)
This appeal was filed
on two claims of expert witness testimony (EDR) and one claim each on
sentencing and the lack of a pre-sentencing statement by the defendant. The
trial court's decisions were upheld on three claims while one was remanded for
re-sentencing.
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania v. Weaver, Bucks County Juvenile Court (2004)
This was a criminal case where EDR evidence was introduced by the prosecution.
A guilty verdict, on one count of involuntary manslaughter, was handed down by
Judge Rea Boylan in a "adversarial hearing".
Pennsylvania v. Wilson, Westmoreland County, Court of
Common Pleas, Criminal Division, Docket No. CP-65-CR-0002666-2005 (2006)
The defendant was
driving a 2001 Impala, on an icy road with a speed limit of 55mph, when it
collided with another vehicle killing two occupants. EDR evidence was admitted
over the objection of the defense. The EDR reported speeds of 51 to 60mph for
the Impala. The police reconstruction determined a speed range of 30 to 40mph.
The defendant claimed a speed range of 30 to 35mph. The jury returned a
verdict of not guilty to all charges.
South Carolina
South Carolina v. Cassels, Beaufort County, General Session Indictment No. 2002 GF 070372
(2003)
This was a criminal case with one count of reckless homicide. The EDR indicated the
defendant was traveling at 98 mph with 100% throttle. The police speed estimate was 82
to 96 mph at impact with another vehicle. The jury returned a guilty verdict.
South Dakota
South Dakota v. Janklow, 3rd Cir., Moody County, Case No. 03-147 (2003)
This was a two vehicle accident involving a car and a motorcycle. The defense
entered data from the EDR in the defendant's 1995 Cadillac without objection from
the prosecution. The defendant was found guilty.
Texas
Texas
v. Zachary, 24th Judicial District Court, Case No. 36975
(2006)
This was a four vehicle
accident with the defendant charged with Intoxicated Manslaughter. The prosecution entered data from the EDR in the defendant's Camaro
over the objection of the defense. The defendant rejected a prosecution plea
agreement offer of eleven years. The jury returned a guilty verdict with a
sentence of three years.
Wisconsin
Wisconsin v. Furst, Outagamie County Circuit Court, Case No. 00CF667
(2001)
This was a criminal case where the defendant was charged with two counts of
Homicide by the Intoxicated Use of a Motor Vehicle. The EDR was recovered from the
victim's vehicle, a 1998 Buick Le Sabre, in which two occupants were killed. The jury
found the defendant guilty on both counts.
Virginia
Virginia v. O'Connell, Chesterfield Circuit Court, Case No. CR04F009991
(2004)
This was a criminal case where EDR evidence was introduced by the prosecution
and defense. Charges included Racing, DUI, Hit & Run, Manslaughter and DUI
Manslaughter. The defendant was convicted in a bench trial.
